He suggests applying the homestead provision to air pollution. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of air pollution. The most extreme environmentalist would be happy to invoke this clause because air pollution problems such as acid rain and photochemical smog (which causes increased hospital admissions) are regional problems and climate change is global problem. So the homestead provision would not allow any one to increase their air pollution any where, because there is always someone who was there first. In truth, I don't see any value of the homestead provision as applied to air pollution.

A bigger problem with his article is that he advocates exactly the kind of one-to-one connection between polluter and effected individual that formed the basis of my objection to strict liability. To reiterate, my objection:

Quote:

So it is a documented fact that that hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems increase on days when air pollution is worse.

Contributors to air pollution number in the millions, if you consider individual automobiles.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of all regulations and if I incur a hospital bill for an air pollution related incident that I should file millions of lawsuits for fractions of a penny for each individual that contributed to the problem?

And borrowing a quote from the linked article:

Quote:

Air pollution, however, of gases or particles that are invisible or undetectable by the senses should not constitute aggression per se, because being insensible they do not interfere with the owner's possession or use. They take on the status of invisible radio waves or radiation, unless they are proven to be harmful, and until this proof and the causal connection from aggressor to victim can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since all of us contribute to the air pollution situation, and some people will be admitted to the hospital for respiratory problems even on the best air quality days, how is one to make a connection between aggressor and victim and demonstrate that the pollution was the cause of that individual's illness?

Under such an onerous test of liability enforcement, any kind of limitation on air pollution would be removed. I'll stick with the Clean Air Act, which recognizes the need to control air pollution broadly across corporate and individual activities.

This is my problems with libertarians. They are so wrapped up in their dogma that they've lost their critical thinking skills in how their no regulation policies will play out in the real world.

To recap, you indicated that I didn't understand strict liability, but would not explain why. You would not provide any direct links or writing supporting your position, then when I researched it for myself, it turns out that my objection was exactly the position of the strict liability camp.